There is much here to ponder in the John Allen, NCR's article and interview with Archbishop Piero Marini on the new Pope and Civil Unions which you can read by PRESSING HERE! He speaks of the swamp air we've been breathing in terms of the sex abuse scandal and the Vatileaks and circling the wagons sort of stuff. Are we at a turning point and moving on with the real mission of the Church? This link may take you to an advertizement video that you should "x" out to bring you to the article.
And Father Barron gives us a new perspective. The Church has no position on the legality of civil unions. This I think is an issue of the state. The Church for her part must not throw out the Church call to chastity, within marriage (which civil unions aren't and marriage is as we have always taught between one man and one women who is free to marry). Chastity applies equally to homosexual and heterosexual people and the grace for it must be sought over and over again as well as forgiveness over and over again when we fail in a variety of ways, in thought, word and deed, alone or with others.
And my post last week on: PASTORAL THEOLOGY CAN NEVER BECOME DOCTRINE OR DOGMA which you can go to HERE!
31 comments:
Father!
I seem to be missing the boat on this one!
http://kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com/2013/04/father-barron-believes-homosexuals.html#comment-form
Are we now supposed to be jumping on the 'same sex civil union' cruise?
:-( k.c.
"Civil union" is just changing the name to avoid dealing with it by taking an unyielding stance against it. Sounds like the Church is going to cave...I tol' ya' so...
This is an excellent interview with Father Barron.
On the general point about the virtual impossibility of serious moral argument in a postmodern world (Father Barron does not use this expression but that is essentially what he is talking about), Alasdair MacIntyre does indeed nail the problem in his book “After Virtue.”
On the specific issue of same sex marriage, pace Father Barron, I am not sure that having friends and relatives who are homosexual necessarily leads to a “sentimentalizing” of the way we reason about the issue of same sex marriage. As I have indicated in comments to earlier posts, for many of us it does force us to confront concrete realities instead of moral abstractions alone by forcing us to consider real persons. And, as I have admitted before, for me this creates serious tension between the Church’s teaching and compassion for my homosexual friends, relatives, and colleagues. I do not believe that feeling “compassion” is the same as the “sentimentalizing” Father Barron is talking about.
In seeking to puzzle through this problematic further in some of those earlier comments, I wondered whether we should distinguish among at least three separate questions in respect of sexual acts between persons of the same sex, and indeed in respect of any act:
(1) Is the act immoral or sinful? The other two questions arise if it is.
(2) Should the act be criminalized?
(3) If not, should the law nevertheless refuse recognition of the act through the denial of various kinds of legal benefit?.
As applied to same sex marriage I will assume that the opposition to same sex marriage, or civil unions, centers on the sexual act that is characteristic of same sex relationships. (Thus I bracketed the question whether same sex marriage, or equivalent status, would be morally acceptable if the same sex spouses committed themselves to celibacy).
With regard to (1) the Church clearly teaches that sexual acts between consenting same sex partners are immoral or sinful; indeed, any sexual acts outside the legitimate conjugal relationship in traditional marriage are immoral or sinful. I do not see how this will change as long as the Church maintains a consistent sexual ethic based on Humane Vitae. Of course, I assume that the usual three conditions must be present for any given person to be culpable (objectively wrongful act, knowledge of wrongfulness, full consent of the will).
With regard to (2) the Church does not, as far as I know, call for the criminalization of sexual acts between members of the same sex (quite apart from the fact that criminalization would be unconstitutional, at least in this country).
With regard to (3), I assume that this is the relevant question for recognition of same sex marriage. For sexually active same sex couples civil recognition of same sex relationships would be one central legal benefit. There are, of course, others (e.g., under various types of anti-discrimination legislation).
(continued)
On this last point, I am somewhat confused by Father’s observations in his post. I had been under the impression before my earlier comments that perhaps the Church accepted the notion of civil unions even though it remained opposed to same sex marriage. However, the additional research I then did suggested that this was not the case. Here are some relevant links:
http://old.usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexfaqs.shtml
http://nccbuscc.org/laity/marriage/samesexunions.shtml
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
The bottom line for the USCCB, at present, seems to be captured in the following statement:
“On two different occasions, in 2003 and 2006, the USCCB Administrative Committee stated: ‘We strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage – by naming them marriage, civil unions, or by other means.’”
My next thought was that this would seem to conclude the issue for us. Do the reported remarks of Archbishop Bergoglio signal a change in the Church’s position, or is the key the notion of recognition “Equivalent” to marriage versus recognition that is not “equivalen”?
In any event, it all brings us back to MacIntyre and what I term the “MacIntyrean dialectic” of conversation among differing moral traditions. And in that regard, I see great value in mutually respectful dialogue between those in favor of same sex marriage or civil unions and those opposed. That value is especially in how the Church (and that includes us) presents its position as part of its effort at loving persuasion in the political conversation as well as in other types of conversation. And surely we should not discount the efficacy of God’s grace working within such dialogue.
Anon 2, One does not dialogue with evil. Such a discussion is a waste of time, anyway. These people do not want dialogue, they want the Church to let them have their way and others of them want to do away with morality altogether...you know anything goes as long as the goat is consenting. Civil union is a meaningless, gobbled-gook term...just another liberal effort to change definitions in order to obfuscate.
It seems that you do not want dialogue either, Gene.
I still want to believe there is value in such dialogue – even if both sides come away with their minds unchanged. After all, God works upon the heart, not just upon the mind, in ways we cannot measure and in ways we cannot always understand.
For example, we have just completed an examination of Humanae Vitae in one of my courses. Taking that document seriously, or even just reading it carefully, helps to promote a greater understanding of the Catholic position on the matters addressed. But how many have actually done that or even heard the arguments of Humane Vitae presented with all their nuance and compassion?
Of course, I do not want to dialogue regarding something I consider to be an open and shut case. Yes, I have read Humane Vitae.
A2, if you have a dialogue, the other person has to understand that it is not a negotiation. In this case no one wants to learn our position that can't do it without a dialogue. They are trying to convert YOU.
The best argument I have heard for 'Gay' marriage is that it is a loving relationship between two people. Bur, is love the same as sex? Why do they need a marriage to bless their sex acts? It is nonsense on stilts.
We should be able to establish legal coverage and relationships for people for whom we care. If a good friend of mine is permanently invalid and has no family that can care for him, I might 'adopt' him and let him move in my home. I have done that. I don't need to use him for my personal urges in any way mainly because I really DO love him. Same with my wife's best friend who had live with us when her trashy husband threw her out. She is a beautiful woman. But she needed our help, not some gutter trade. Sheesh.
A friend of mine in Africa explained to me why he has multiple wives. He has the money to care for them and it is his obligation. That is closer, but still wrong. He could also support them and not use them physically. To some extent it is expected, and that is the conversion process we bring. It looks like the wrong conversion process has been going on very successfully in this country for awhile and we need to start over.
Of course_you_have read Humanae Vitae, Gene. That wasn't my point.
rcg,
Perhaps my hopes for fruitful dialogue are indeed quixotic. After all, no-one responding to my suggestion regarding dialogue seems to understand what I am talking about. Whether that is because I have failed to express myself clearly enough and/or because readers have pre-conceived notions about dialogue, I cannot say. Either way, I am not having much success regarding the point on this thread.
Regarding your second point, I am not sure that gay couples would accept your apparent premise. Might they well not respond that they desire a blessing not for their sex acts but for their loving relationship, precisely based on the distinction you draw between love and sex? Perhaps a dialogue with gay couples might help promote a better understanding of this point. =)
Anon 2, Homosexuals, in most cases, identify themselves primarily by their sexuality. They are obsessed with it. One cannot separate the so-called "loving relationship" and view it in a vacuum. This is more prevarication in an effort to gain acceptance for their aberrant behavior.
Homosexual couples should not be entitled to the same benefits as married couples. It twists and mocks traditional marriage, is a cynical use of the "system" for immoral purposes, and strains the system of benefits for normal people. Have we completely lost our minds?
OK, if Fran and the magistarium follows P. Marini's advice and allows same sex unions, then I demand to be allowed to enjoy porn and masturbation without sin. Period.
Anon 3, I wouldn't have told that...LOL!
For a Catholic to choose to live in a civil union (which in the eyes of the Church occurs when a Catholic who has a prior marriage that cannot be dissolved marries again, civilly,) they commit sin by breaking the 6th commandment. That is a Church issue that the Church makes clear in her teachings. The same for homosexuals who fornicate and heterosexuals too, regardless of the legal status under the law.
So, then, a civil union could only be fornication in the eyes of the Church...BUT, the Church is thinking about condoning civil unions.
In other news, the Church views the SSPX, an organization committed to true Catholic faith and worship, as well as strong Christian morality, to be schismatic and deserving of censure. Film at 11.
Distortion of the truth Gene, a Catholic homosexual or heterosexual in a "civil union" which is only recognized by the state, not by the Church commits sin if they have sex with their partner, heterosexual or homosexual. And becasue of this public sin, they are to refrain from receiving Holy Communion until they separate or live as "brother and sister" if heterosexual or as brother and brother or sister and sister if homosexual. The benefits the state accords sinners or anyone in a chaste civil union is the states business and therefore a political issue that includes money but more than money too.
Fr, But, how is it a distortion of the truth? There are spokesmen for the Church who think the Church should acknowledge civil unions. This is condoning fornication and mocking marriage. Unless...unless you really believe these people are not going to have sex, which is completely naive. Even if they live chastely in a same sex union, it is still a mockery of marriage, which the Church considers a Sacrament. There is no way to soft-pedal this crap.
Fran will simplify all doctrine based upon the commandment "Thou shall not commit adultry" as to mean "do not violate the sacrament of marriage without consent of all parties". Therefore, if you are not married, or in a non-sacramental civil union, you can enjoy all sexual pleasures at will. If you are married, your spouse must have full knowledge and consent. If that is there, you are free to have "open marriages", work in porn, etc.
Gene, I freaked a little when I saw that, too. But this Marini is the la Idiota Marini and more than a little duplicitous. He may be calling fire on his own position.
A3, I see your point, but think that this is a case of Mystery of Grace. We can't demand it, we can only beg for it. We have to mean it when we do. I think Pope Francis sees that people want to make their own minds up about things and is giving them the chance. People have rebelled against Natural Law and want to make up their minds. Also, he is putting the Lie to claims that the Church hates homosexuals and wants to harm them, etc. He is trying to get people to understand they are not being condemned by the Church nearly as much as they are condemning themselves.
A2, as Gene says, they are defining the dialogue in the frame of their sex drive. How about when someone is sponsored for Confirmation, or a Priest marries a couple? There are people who still will accuse Catholics of claiming First Night privileges. Isn't that exactly what a homosexual marriage is?
Anon 3, How about goats? Are consenting relationships with goats ok? I saw this little nanny standing by a fence today and she was kinda pretty....
Anon 3: It does not follow that if the Church withdraws its opposition to civil law recognition of same sex unions, a recognition that is not the equivalent of marriage, that it is condoning the morality of such unions or of the other acts you mention. I tried to separate out several different questions in my first comment in this thread to help us avoid confusion on this point. Father confirms these distinctions in his comments. I am not sure where you are getting your ideas about what “Fran” will do.
Gene: Even allowing for your use of “most,” your depiction regarding “obsession” does not describe the same sex couples I know. Indeed, I suspect they would say that the only way they might appear to some to be “obsessed” with their sexuality is as a mirror image of “obsession” with their sexuality by those opposed to it.
Please understand, I am not advocating for same sex marriage or civil unions or any other recognition. I am also not opposing it. I am trying to understand the Church’s position on these matters and to help clarify our thinking, not least my own, as we puzzle through these matters.
A2, I would bet you that very few people who are talking about same sex marriage would be talking about it all if the people who wanted it were not obsessed with bringing it up and pressing to get it into law. All the 'loving' things people want to do for each other are still available to do, nothing is stopping them. They are the ones that drive sex into the conversation.
Gene. Goats? That would be "kidding".
Now, Anon2, when it is said that a same sex union is not the equivalent of marriage that is prevarication. The aberrants want to have marriage ceremonies and receive the same benefits as married men and women. But, we try to dodge the issue by saying that a marriage can only be between opposite sexes and, therefore we have to create a new category.
Let's see:
1. Two people living together contractually and having sex is a marriage. (All A is B)
2. Bruce and Horace live together contractually and have sex (C is A)
3. Therefore: (C is B)
rcg, I still detect a conflation of love and sex in your comment. Heterosexual couples do not “drive sex into the conversation” by wanting formal recognition of their relationship with all the attendant rights and responsibilities that come with that. Moreover, on your argument, they too could still do all the “loving things" for one another without legal recognition of their relationship --except, of course, they couldn’t. There are some “loving” things the law only permits a spouse or someone with a legally recognized relationship to do. Why is it different for same sex couples?
Gene, just to be clear, the point about “non-equivalence” is not mine. It was made by Cardinal Marini as discussed in the article that is one of the subjects of Father’s post. I am unclear myself what it is supposed to mean exactly. Here is the relevant quote from the article:
“A secular state is fine, but if it turns into a secularist state, meaning hostile to the Catholic Church, then there's something wrong. Church and state should not be enemies to one another. In these discussions, it's necessary, for instance, to recognize the union of persons of the same sex, because there are many couples that suffer because their civil rights aren't recognized. What can't be recognized is that this [union] is equivalent to marriage.”
RE: Church and state cannot be enemies to each other.
Never the twain shall meet. Be reminded that, when Satan was with Jesus in the wilderness and offered HIm all the kingdoms of the world (political kingdoms/power), Christ never questioned Satan's ownership or his right to offer them.
Christ's challenge (for it is one), "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's," is one of the most difficult quandaries for the Christian in society, for Christ does not delineate these things for us...it is the challenge of the Christian life, the deepest individual question.
Thank you for the reminder, Gene. Your comment does prompt some fascinating and important questions. For example:
(1) Is it really the case that the Church and State cannot be enemies? Suppose the State attempts to outlaw the Catholic Church, for example? That cannot happen in the United States, of course, because U.S. positive law in the form of the First Amendment (which many may regard as implementing a natural human right to religious freedom) prevents it. But less dramatically, doesn’t the DHSS health care mandate regarding the provision of birth control coverage by employers raise the issue?
(2) Doesn’t Christ’s challenge also raise an important jurisprudential question for society, not just for the individual? Specifically, to what extent can/should the Church demand that the State use its temporal power to implement divine and natural law in positive human law?
We would agree, I assume, that the Church can and should demand that the State take effective steps to protect human life, including innocent unborn life (although there may be reasonable disagreement about what precise steps would be the most effective to protect the unborn).
But what about homosexuality? This leads me back to the questions in my first comment in this thread? Should the Church demand that the State re-criminalize homosexual acts (the Church could, of course, demand this even in the United States – for example, through a constitutional amendment or through changed judicial interpretation of the Constitution)? And if not, should the Church demand that the State deny civil law recognition of same sex marriages? Of civil unions? All these questions, it would seem, are raised by Christ’s challenge as instances of the more general question: just what precisely should be rendered to God and what to the State?
Anon 2, Yes, indeed, these are difficult questions. Your number 2 is the big one for me, and relates to the era of Christendom. On one level, it is equally presumptuous for the Church to demand that the State implement Divine Law or for the State to demand that the Church be subject to civil law on theological matters. There is overlap, of course (thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness), but even these are agreed upon for different reasons.
The Christian world views the State as a necessary evil. In a fallen world, the State is sinful man's attempt at order. In Christendom, this was properly understood as the State being the temporal arm of Divine justice but, since both Church and State are composed of sinful men, this had some most unsatisfactory expressions. I am not sure there is a satisfactory answer. The struggle itself is the answer.
We cannot, I believe, ask the State to criminalize homosexual acts unless we ask them to also criminalize adultery, lying, missing Mass, cussing, or being ugly to your parents. We cannot persecute homosexuals. I think the State should just stay the Hell out of it. Just drop all this civil union crap and let things go along as they were. Homosexuals have full civil rights anyway, just as any other minority. That should be enough.
A2, you are attempting to invert the discussion and seem, maybe just seem, to be dissembling Christ's teachings. Should the state out law murder? Should the state allow adults to have sex with children because they can't get pregnant? Should we reconsider teachings on sodomy in light of possible over population? What accommodation should the state make for mental illness? Is homosexuality really a mental illness, Is it disordered? If not, then what purpose does it serve?
You finally dropped the real topic when you asked if the state should re-criminalize homosexuality. The Church does not teach the physical persecution of anyone. People hold themselves hostage to their own mental anguish when they are told 'No' and cannot have something the desire.
The next phase must include forcing the Church to defend itself against the accusation of persecution, oppression and physical harm against homosexuals. There is more than one reason to support same sex marriage, one is to satisfy the carnal desires of disordered people, the other is to attack the Church.
Rcg, Please help me out here. First, how exactly am I attempting to subvert the discussion or seem to dissemble Christ’s teachings by asking what I think are important jurisprudential questions concerning the relationship of Church and State? I think you know that I would certainly not do these things intentionally. Second, what do you mean by “dropped the real topic”?
These are not hostile questions. I genuinely do not understand. Thanks in advance for clarifying.
Sorry, rcg, I misread your comment. You said “invert” not “subvert.” Of course, I still don’t understand. =) However, upon further reflection in light of Gene’s response, which you probably had not read when you sent your comment, I also realize that my questions to you may now be moot because, unless I am mistaken, his response should help allay your concerns,
Post a Comment